 | | Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) This is cool! It looks like the SCALA gray might be available in bricks. I have some non-trivial concerns about the User Agreement, though: (URL) quote the User Agreement in its entirety below, interspersed with good faith commentary. UA> By (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.dear-lego) !!
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | In lugnet.dear-lego, Todd Lehman writes: [Quoting Brick-O-Lizer User Agreement] (...) Uh, no. It just means that if LEGO puts some of their copyrighted material into the final product, they retain copyright. I suppose this will restrict what you do (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) My concern is that LEGO might try to argue that the final brick configuration from the dithering algorithm was part of the "new material" added by LEGO in connection with preparing the final product. (...) Could you then create your own LDraw (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Hmm. I think it could be argued that the mosaic pattern is a reproduction of the original material, and so doesn't merit a new copyright. Just like reproducing a color picture in gray-scale halftone. Especially since the reproduction is a (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | | (...) The legal language they use would seem to permit any artistic or educational (i.e. not "obscene" in the Supreme Court sense) nude material. I'm surprised they diddn't add a "family/child friendly" catchall. (...) I guess they don't want you (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Oops, I forgot a "full disclosure" statement. Although I don't feel that my concerns are biased, I think it is still in order: Full disclosure: I operate a website with a Mosaic Maker web application[1] which allows users to upload a JPEG or (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Jeff Elliott
|
| | | | | (...) <snip some cogent questions> (...) I'd make the following comments on your post, Todd: 1) Are you sure the new colour is the SCALA gray, or even that the lightest gray is the new gray? I'm thinking of ordering one of these for plates, and (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) No, I'm not sure; it was an educated guess. However, I just spoke with someone at LEGO who said the color wasn't recently new. So I think it's a reasonably good bet that it's either the LEGO SCALA light warm gray -- the one that came out about (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | (...) In fact, doesn't the description of the product even talk about taking it apart to make other images? This would suggest that TLC's intent is that you be able to use the parts to make other images. Frank (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <G3oFGo.JED@lugnet.com>... (...) it. (...) it, (...) do (...) one (...) alternate (...) Todd, your last statement has an odd ring to it. Perhaps you can elaborate. You are a person who (rightly so) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | (...) Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think most thinking people would consider a lot of the junk in that "license" was unenforcable crap. If I buy one of these Mosaic things I'll display it, take it apart, and/or do whatever I want with (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes: <snip> (...) <snip> I dunno if that was intentional or not, but it sure made me snurk. :) James (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Inviting it? No. Drawing attention to the fact that it is possible? Yes. Would I do it myself? Yes. If I buy the product and the agreement hasn't changed to clarify the confusion, yes, I will construct the actual mosaic with a separate program (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm guessing that you're reading negative connotations into Todd's statement that he didn't intend. From what I know of Todd (which is only via online communication, primarily on RLT and LUGNET), he meant 'exploit' as 'use', not 'unfairly (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Yup! The question of circumventing the ambiguities in the LMBOLUA[1] is an amoral issue (not moral, and not immoral, but amoral, meaning not in the realm of morality or immorality) and if you find an obvious loophole in an agreement that you (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Especially when the "spirit" of the LMBOLUA is part of the ambiguity. We don't know what TLC is trying to accomplish via the terms they laid out. All we know is they put together a number of somewhat bizarre legalish terms. Now, if we had a (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Tobias Möller
|
| | | | | But what could LEGO do if I sell the bricks, make copies (with duplo or regular bricks), trade the bricks with your friends, take it to work etc? Are they going to sue me for playing with their product? To do sue me, first, they must track me down, (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Probably nothing. But you might be breaking the agreement if you did that. To the best of my knowledge, LEGO has never before required a customer to agree to a written set of rules governing the use of the product prior to making the sale. (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-LizerT User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Lawrence Wilkes
|
| | | | | | "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:G3rwLG.HMt@lugnet.com... (...) etc? (...) that. (...) Next thing they will be saying you cannot use the bricks in any set to make anything other than the model described by the instructions (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Daniel Allen
|
| | | | <big snip> (...) <big snip> Does not infringe on copyright huh. Well does that mean I couldn't make a mosaic of the Led Zeppelin I cover (which would lend itself very well to a mosaic btw). This may be more of an issue wuth the record company. Who (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) In all honesty, my guess is that if you did it, you'd get your mosaic. If you did it, and you built the mosaic, and then you went on eBay and sold it, and the record company noticed and went after LEGO, LEGO could point at the user agreement (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
